More than three-quarters of all firearm deaths in Colorado during 2004-2011 were suicides.Nearly half of all suicide deaths involved the use of a firearm. Suicide deaths by firearm areprimarily among males (87 percent) and the White Non-Hispanic racial/ethnic group (88percent).

Do you think "doing something about guns now" would eliminate these deaths?

I'd be willing to concede that perhaps some of these deaths would not have happened without access to firearms, but suicidal, mentally depressed people tend to find a way, if they don't find help.

In the 3 months since Sandy Hook more people have dies (2793) from guns in the USA than died in 9/11.

But we don't really know if these numbers show criminals shooting innocent people (or other criminals) or innocent people defending their lives?

there are nonlethal ways to defend lives

Would this be why countries where there isn't a gun culture like this the murder rates are generally lower? Like the UK, Japan and various European countries?

The difference between murder rates in countries with a strong gun culture, like the US and SA and in countries where guns aren't really a part of people's lives or culture is quite alarming.

I say gun culture, because guns are technically legal in many of these countries, including the UK and Japan, of course, regulation is much higher too, but it's not completely illegal. If I wanted to own a gun, I could do so legally, however, I'm not going to buy it with the paranoia that it's a tool I need to use to protect myself, because there's no culture of such paranoia. Instead if I was going to buy one, it'd be more likely that it'd be for hunting or for other sport, I might even be a farmer shooting game (like the farmers in my village). I would be restricted to guns that are suitable for hunting, I wouldn't be able to buy semi-automatics or heck, even an easily concealed handgun.

Interestingly, the UK has higher violent crime per capita than the US, but you're a lot more likely to walk away from violent crime in the UK alive as most of our violent crime are assaults. Our murder rate is much lower. You can walk away from an assault quite safely and probably quite easily prosecute the offender if you're able to ID them well enough. Add a gun to the situation and you're talking about a situation that is easily escalated to something far worse. In some cases you may scare an attacker, in others it'd be more lethal, perhaps the attackers feels the need to defend themselves are pulls their gun out too.

In other cases, people use 'self defence' as an excuse to pull the trigger, when it was completely unnecessary, for example, the attacker was unarmed. With this gun culture, you are given people that power.

I don't think guns should be completely banned, I just think there needs to be high regulations, I don't think there needs to be a gun culture of 'it's for self defence', because in my eyes that argument is bullshit. I feel much safer in a country where I'm more likely to get assaulted and walk out alive than a country where I'm less likely to get assaulted but more likely to end up dead.

Of course, there are countries where there's a lack of gun culture and murder and other violent crime is lower. But I am using my own country as an example here.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Do you think "doing something about guns now" would eliminate these deaths?

I think the statistic is having a gun in your home makes you 3-5 times more likely to die by gunshot than if you didn't have a gun. So yeah. Based on those numbers, doing something could prevent as many as 60-80% of those suicides.

I think it also depends heavily on what we do about guns. I'm not saying they need to be banned altogether, although I would not oppose that. But I think we need to set a higher bar for who we allow to own guns.

Personal opinion here - I do not think many gun related injuries and deaths are so much planned and premeditated as they are stupid accidents or "crimes of passion". Some guy gets pissed off at his friend because he took the last piece of pizza, and because he happend to have a gun in his hand, his friend ends up dead.

The gun is an extremely convenient and effective tool. No other tool does what a gun does as well as a gun. If it did, our military would use those tools instead. Whether you are depressed about your miserable life or pissed at your wife for nagging you to stop drinking so much beer and get a job, a gun is the wrong thing to have in your hand at the moment. It makes impulsive suicide or killing extremely easy. It takes a lot more to kill a person (or yourself) with a knife or a hammer or a bomb (since you'd have to make it from scratch) or your bare hands than it does with a gun.

Quote

I'd be willing to concede that perhaps some of these deaths would not have happened without access to firearms, but suicidal, mentally depressed people tend to find a way, if they don't find help.

Two points on that one. First, I disagree with "they'll find a way no matter what" argument, whether it be suicides or criminals. I don't think people are all that determined to kill themselves or other people. I think in the overwhelming majority of cases, someone ends up dead because a gun is handy and efficient.

If we made a list of all the ways to kill yourself or other people, they are all more difficult than just shooting someone. And in this country, we have made it ridiculously easy to have that option available. You could kill yourself by firing up the lawn mower and rigging it up to fall on your head. But that takes thought and effort, and by time you are half way into it you probably won't feel like going through with it. But if you had a gun, it would be over in a flash. No effort. No opportunity to reflect.

And sure, you could kill your idiot neighbor for parking on your property by stabbing him with a kitchen knife. But that requires you get up close and personal and take the chance that he takes the knife from you. Plus, I think most people do not have the stomach to actually stab someone. That might make you rethink your need to make your neighbor stop breathing. If you had a gun, you could put him down from 30 feet away without hardly thinking about it. And you certainly would not have to look into his eyes as you do it.

Second, I definitely and vigorously agree with you that we need to do a better job helping these people. From that article:

Quote

I see patients every day that are right on the edge of being unstable and are out there in the environment, and they describe problems with access to medications, problems with access to psychiatric care or substance abuse care, problems with access to homes or to shelter," says Colwell. "But they don't describe problems with access to guns.

I think that is a huge problem on both ends of it.

Overall, I don't really care if idiots accidentally shoot themselves. In fact, I'm kind of glad they do. But the problem is idiots take out a lot of bystanders. If idiots only hurt themeselves, I'd be all for passing out free guns.

Personal opinion here - I do not think many gun related injuries and deaths are so much planned and premeditated as they are stupid accidents or "crimes of passion". Some guy gets pissed off at his friend because he took the last piece of pizza, and because he happend to have a gun in his hand, he friend ends up dead.

The gun is an extremely convenient and effective tool. No other tool does what a gun does as well as a gun. If it did, our military would use those tools instead. Whether you are depressed about your miserable life or pissed at your wife for nagging you to stop drinking so much beer and get a job, a gun is the wrong thing to have in your hand at the moment. It makes impulsive suicide or killing extremely easy. It takes a lot more to kill a person (or yourself) with a knife or a hammer or a bomb (since you'd have to make it from scratch) or your bare hands than it does with a gun.

I would pretty much say this. It's this kind of thing that makes points like, "if they wanted to kill some they would have found another way of doing it" moot, because we are talking cases where the crime wasn't pre-meditated. If the majority of these crimes were pre-meditated, then perhaps I would understand the argument. Yes, if a person really wanted to murder somebody, they could. If a person loses their cool, misjudges a situation or is intoxicated then it's a completed different situation. I'd argue a gun means the difference between an assault and a murder. A gun isn't necessity for self-defence, unless it's of course it'll defend you against another gun. In this situation, I would only understand a person's feel to need a gun if they were in a neighbourhood where there's a lot of gun crime. Making the cause of the problem its solution.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Do you think "doing something about guns now" would eliminate these deaths?

I think the statistic is having a gun in your home makes you 3-5 times more likely to die by gunshot than if you didn't have a gun. So yeah. Based on those numbers, doing something could prevent as many as 60-80% of those suicides.

I don't think I agree with your numbers, seeing as though not even half of Colorado suicides were by bullet. But both our thoughts on the subject are mere speculation, so I'm not going to get hung up on it.

Quote

Two points on that one. First, I disagree with "they'll find a way no matter what" argument, whether it be suicides or criminals. I don't think people are all that determined to kill themselves or other people. I think in the overwhelming majority of cases, someone ends up dead because a gun is handy and efficient.

Again, I must point out that, according to the link you provided, not even half of Colorado suicides were by bullet. So the remainder of CO suicides were by some other lethal means. I don't believe that those people were more determined, and more grossly inconvenienced, than those with access to firearms. I do hope it's obvious that I wouldn't stand behind the blanket statement of "they'll find a way no matter what" to be all inclusive with regards to suicides or crime. Of course a lack of access would stop some, perhaps many, of said actions.

The rest of your post I cannot disagree with. I would, however, point out that your original posting of the link to CO bullet deaths felt disingenuous, and smacked of the fear mongering that doesn't lead easily to rational discourse. But maybe that's just because I live in Colorado.

Serves the little rat f*cker right. We are waiting on a 4 to 7 snow at this very moment with some places getting maybe 12 inches. This is late March. Enough already. Is there a Sun God out there I can pray to?

16 yr old boy shot and killed his 12 yr old brother in Orlando today. 2nd child killing in the last few days there. Both listed as accidental.

After the NRA showed its power in congress there will not be any meaningful gun control in this country. As someone on FOX said, "Obama wants to take our guns away. How are we suppose to protect ourselves when Syria and Iran attack us?" See...you can't fight stupid.

I'm going to change my view on guns now. They will be with us forever so it is just a way to thin the heard.

After the NRA showed its power in congress there will not be any meaningful gun control in this country. As someone on FOX said, "Obama wants to take our guns away. How are we suppose to protect ourselves when Syria and Iran attack us?" See...you can't fight stupid.

You can't be serious. Really? REALLY!? I know I shouldn't surprised, because I know Fox say stupid things and I know what the Murdock mafia is like (we've got some of it in the UK), but even then...

Shame the US doesn't have any laws that would make Fox accountable for what they say and do. I considered it quite the victory when News of the World went down in the UK (one of Murdoch's lot) and some of the dodgy journalists went down, though sadly, Piers Morgan walks free. Though he spends most of his time in the US, so he's your problem now.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

One of the things I love about the USA is its willingness to allow anyone to say whatever nonsense they wish, with fairly few limitations. Remember that the USA is still largely very conservative and religious, and those groups would prefer (to put it mildly, in the case of the latter) to silence dissenting voices. The same laws that protect Fox News when they say something ridiculous about the President have also allowed the press to investigate and report on legitimate wrong being done or attempted by past Presidents.

As for guns, I doubt we'll ever ban them outright, it's a deeply-rooted cultural issue. For some people, attempts to legislate gun ownership strikes at the core of American cultural values. Trying to take them away would be tantamount to a declaration of war on the populace itself. That's why most gun legislation is restricted to limiting magazine sizes and how to categorize what an assault weapon is.

Based on those numbers, doing something could prevent as many as 60-80% of those suicides.

I don't think I agree with your numbers, seeing as though not even half of Colorado suicides were by bullet. But both our thoughts on the subject are mere speculation, so I'm not going to get hung up on it.

Come on, man. I'm not the smartest guy here, but give me a little credit. I was not suggesting better gun restrictions would prevent suicides that did not occur by guns.

Based on those numbers, doing something could prevent as many as 60-80% of those suicides.

I don't think I agree with your numbers, seeing as though not even half of Colorado suicides were by bullet. But both our thoughts on the subject are mere speculation, so I'm not going to get hung up on it.

I was not suggesting better gun restrictions would prevent suicides that did not occur by guns.

I didn't mean to suggest you were. Mea culpa. I meant to suggest, if I'm reading your post correctly, that lack of access to guns would NOT have cut bullet related suicides by 60-80%. And to reiterate, I do believe that lack of access would indeed have an effect, but I don't believe it would be 60-80%. I think it would be a much lower percentage, but we're both just speculating.

After we adjusted for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16, 17.04) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession....In assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 5.45 (95% CI = 1.01, 29.92) times more likely to be shot....On average, guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur,33,57 the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely.

That article does not give an explanation of what it considers to be a successful self-defense use of a gun. As I said before, over 90% of all uses of guns for self-defense involve the gun merely being brandished, and the criminal fleeing -- no shot is fired at all. The report does not indicate whether it includes such cases or not. The language used in the report suggests (although not with certainty) that such cases are not addressed.

Aside, by the way: if a person who has a gun is more likely to get shot than to be able to use it to protect himself, does that mean that police officers and law abiding citizens shouldn't have any guns, and convicted criminals should have all the guns they want so that we can wait for them to get killed?

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

I don't think so. It looked at 3000+ cases of people being shot in the Philly area. So if shots were not fired, it was not captured in the data.

I think all those cases where a gun was brandished to scare off or prevent a crime are difficult to quantify and I am extremely skeptical of the numbers. Unless someone comes up and announces his or her intent to rob you, you are guessing at motivations. "I saw a guy with lots of tattoos who kept looking at me. When he approached, I pulled out my Glock. He ran away. Wooooo! Second Amendment!" Maybe he wanted to rob you. Maybe he thought you were an old friend. Maybe he thought you were hot. Tough to say.

Aside, by the way: if a person who has a gun is more likely to get shot than to be able to use it to protect himself, does that mean that police officers and law abiding citizens shouldn't have any guns, and convicted criminals should have all the guns they want so that we can wait for them to get killed?

I cannot tell if that is humor, sarcasm or what.

Of course I don't think crimials should have guns. Nor mentally ill people. Nor irresponsible assholes. That latter category includes a minimum of 50% of the human population. They are also over represented in gun injuries.

I think these numbers tell me anyone who wants to buy a gun for self defense should think twice. Because chances are, it won't help you. And in a confrontation with someone else with a gun, it makes you 4 times more likely to be killed than if you didn't have one. Maybe the key is to just leave your gun at home?

As for police, I have a growing paranoia about them. With the proliferation of video cameras in phones it is easier than ever to document police abuse and corruption. And there is so much of it I have come to fear and loathe police. It appears that a significant portion of them fall into the "irresponsible assholes" category. Given that, I do think police should be more like those in the UK, where their guns are locked up in their cars and they need permission from HQ to take them out. Based on that study about how just seeing a gun makes men more agressive, I think that would be a safer approach.

So guns are tools that allow a person to off himself in his moment of weakness before he gets to his senses? But isn't one's mental wellness one's own responsibility? So wouldn't the person that killed himself be responsible? Where's the problem their? I fail to see the problem here.

A person has total freedom over their own choices unless it negatively impacts others, right? We may influence other people but we aren't allowed to curtail their freedom even for their own good. As far as I know, being suicidal isn't considered being insane so we can't restrict a persons access to firearms and curtail their freedom even if its for their own good unless they somehow gave us permission to stop them because they trust our judgement above their own.

Personally, I think that the problem with guns is that they work alot like cars except guns aren't as important to as many people. They both serve an important function, transportation and defense against wild animals(humans included). The problem is that when improperly used, they don't just hurt the idiot that made the mistake, they hurt innocents too.

I don't think so. It looked at 3000+ cases of people being shot in the Philly area. So if shots were not fired, it was not captured in the data.

That was my impression as well.

Quote

I think all those cases where a gun was brandished to scare off or prevent a crime are difficult to quantify

They certainly can be. The fact that estimates vary so much is a pretty good indication of that, even when you consider the biases of the people who claim to this or that set of numbers.

Quote

and I am extremely skeptical of the numbers.

I can understand that. And as much as I like to believe that I'm a scientific skeptic -- and in most areas, I am -- I also have to admit that there are areas where my biases can be hard to overlook. This is one of them, which is why I always try to make an extra effort to maintain my objectivity. It's not easy.

Quote

Unless someone comes up and announces his or her intent to rob you, you are guessing at motivations.

Sometimes it might be. Other times, it isn't. If you're talking about a home invasion, for example, motivations aren't difficult to guess.

Quote

"I saw a guy with lots of tattoos who kept looking at me. When he approached, I pulled out my Glock. He ran away. Wooooo! Second Amendment!"

I don't know how often that happens, but I do know that it's a good way to get arrested. In most jurisdictions, brandishing a firearm without justification is at least a misdemeanor and in some jurisdictions a felony. "Brandishing", in some jurisdictions, even includes things like sweeping your coat back and letting your sidearm show by accident when you reach into your pocket for your keys or something.

Aside, by the way: if a person who has a gun is more likely to get shot than to be able to use it to protect himself, does that mean that police officers and law abiding citizens shouldn't have any guns, and convicted criminals should have all the guns they want so that we can wait for them to get killed?

I cannot tell if that is humor, sarcasm or what.

It was an attempted reductio ad absurdum: if guns are more dangerous to those who possess them, then obviously criminals should have them and police officers shouldn't. The idea is to possibly make you think about some things, since that notion is obviously ridiculous, as you say.

Quote

Of course I don't think crimials should have guns. Nor mentally ill people. Nor irresponsible assholes. That latter category includes a minimum of 50% of the human population. They are also over represented in gun injuries.

OK, good.

Quote

I think these numbers tell me anyone who wants to buy a gun for self defense should think twice. Because chances are, it won't help you. And in a confrontation with someone else with a gun, it makes you 4 times more likely to be killed than if you didn't have one. Maybe the key is to just leave your gun at home?

If you want to argue that it's OK to use firearms for self-defense at home but not in public, I can understand that. I don't agree, but there is a lot to be said for that stance, and I'm not concerned to refute it.

Quote

As for police, I have a growing paranoia about them.

So do I. A friend of mine who just finished law school advises not talking to police at all, ever, unless you're doing something like reporting a crime. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Quote

With the proliferation of video cameras in phones it is easier than ever to document police abuse and corruption.

I don't know if you've been following this or not, but there have been quite a few cases where people were recording police carrying out their duties, and the police have ordered them to stop and confiscated their equipment, and even arrested them, if they didn't. It's very worrisome. Courts have reiterated that police going about their duties in public places have no expectation of privacy and that it's perfectly legal to record them, but a lot of cops don't like that, and it's still happening.

Quote

And there is so much of it I have come to fear and loathe police. It appears that a significant portion of them fall into the "irresponsible assholes" category. Given that, I do think police should be more like those in the UK, where their guns are locked up in their cars and they need permission from HQ to take them out. Based on that study about how just seeing a gun makes men more agressive, I think that would be a safer approach.

I agree with this as well, especially inasmuch as in the United States, one out of every three cops who gets shot in the line of duty is shot with his own weapon.

I believe you were the one a while back who pointed out the strange dichotomy that a lot of cops and soliders have, right? Where they take tremendous pride in their self-sacrifice for protecting our safety and freedoms while simultaneously sneering at us and saying that we don't deserve them? That doesn't just make me angry, it also makes me very, very nervous.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

But isn't one's mental wellness one's own responsibility? So wouldn't the person that killed himself be responsible? Where's the problem their? I fail to see the problem here.

Well, I think it depends what our assumptions are. If one assumption is the suicidee is of sound mind, there might be no problem. But I think that is often not the case. I think often suicide is due to treatable mental distress, for lack of a better word. I don't want to say mental illness because I don't think that is always the case. But I think someone who is suffering from acute depression over something they may get over could act rashly. And a handy gun would make that an irreversible decision.

Obviously, this does not apply to all cases of suicide. Some people are very sick and suffering and they have their mental capabilities. I am in favor of them making their own decisions.

A person has total freedom over their own choices unless it negatively impacts others, right?

Yes, but that assumes they are capable and free to make rational decisions. Azdgari and I had a long discussion about this as it pertained to body modification. Among my points was someone who is anorexic is not capable of making rational decisions regarding food and eating.

We may influence other people but we aren't allowed to curtail their freedom even for their own good.

Actually we are. We do it for children. We put people with Alzheimers and Dementia in hospitals against their will every day. We do the same for the mentally retarded and in some cases the mentally ill as well.

So do I. A friend of mine who just finished law school advises not talking to police at all, ever, unless you're doing something like reporting a crime. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Me too. Some time ago a read an essay by a lawyer that said never, ever talk to the police without a lawyer. He pointed out that in the Miranda Statement there is nothing that says they will use your words to exonerate you. They will only be used against you. That may have been a link you provided.

yes. This is actually what got me started on my dubious attitude toward cops. One youtube video after another of cops threatening people with cameras. They lead to videos of cops behaving very unprofessionally, which lead to cops behaving violently.

There was one where three black teens were videoing themselves in a Walmart parking lot. There happened to be a cop in the background. He flipped out and got out his tazer. The kid ultimately turned off his viddy. It absolutely boiled my blood. My impulse would have been to take the tazer and shove it up the cop's ass.

There was also a good one from the UK where the guy with the camera absolutely knew his stuff and was more than the cops could handle. A cop went to put his hand over the camera and the guy asked "What do you think you are doing? You can't touch that." If I can find it, I will link it. He actually has numerous videos like that. In one, the cops come to his house to ask him why he is video taping in public. He basically tells them to get bent.

I believe you were the one a while back who pointed out the strange dichotomy that a lot of cops and soliders have, right?

yep. right wingers too. They demand I leave the US for not loving it sufficiently when they are the ones taking a shit on the bill of rights. Except the 2nd amendment, natch. I find that to be more unAmerican. I love telling them to move to China.

I don't think so. It looked at 3000+ cases of people being shot in the Philly area. So if shots were not fired, it was not captured in the data.

I think all those cases where a gun was brandished to scare off or prevent a crime are difficult to quantify and I am extremely skeptical of the numbers. Unless someone comes up and announces his or her intent to rob you, you are guessing at motivations. "I saw a guy with lots of tattoos who kept looking at me. When he approached, I pulled out my Glock. He ran away. Wooooo! Second Amendment!" Maybe he wanted to rob you. Maybe he thought you were an old friend. Maybe he thought you were hot. Tough to say.

An auto insurance actuary doesn't keep track of near misses because nobody keeps track of near misses. You can only measure what is recorded. Likely there is nothing worthwhile achieved by the tracking of near misses, assuming one could do so.

As for police, I have a growing paranoia about them. With the proliferation of video cameras in phones it is easier than ever to document police abuse and corruption. And there is so much of it I have come to fear and loathe police.

Hmmm. I am not anywhere near that yet, but I am annoyed when they ask us to do things for which they have no right to ask. They abuse the respect of their positions when they do things like that.

Given that, I do think police should be more like those in the UK, where their guns are locked up in their cars and they need permission from HQ to take them out. Based on that study about how just seeing a gun makes men more agressive, I think that would be a safer approach.

I don't think there is any doubt that possessing a weapon of greater intensity makes the holder more aggressive in his/her behaviors.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

ON TYT last night they had a segment with Cheech of Cheech and Chong. He suggested a way to solve the gun issue was to have everyone who wants to own a gun have to buy insurance for the gun. Insurance companies would charge based on the damage done by different guns. Like malpractice insurance. Interesting idea.

ON TYT last night they had a segment with Cheech of Cheech and Chong. He suggested a way to solve the gun issue was to have everyone who wants to own a gun have to buy insurance for the gun. Insurance companies would charge based on the damage done by different guns. Like malpractice insurance. Interesting idea.

Some jurisdictions are looking at that. I don't recall offhand whether it's been implemented anywhere.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

ON TYT last night they had a segment with Cheech of Cheech and Chong. He suggested a way to solve the gun issue was to have everyone who wants to own a gun have to buy insurance for the gun. Insurance companies would charge based on the damage done by different guns. Like malpractice insurance. Interesting idea.

Some jurisdictions are looking at that. I don't recall offhand whether it's been implemented anywhere.

I am not aware of any such requirement.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

As a matter of curiosity, since I know basically nothing about guns (never had any need or the least bit of interest in owning one)...How much pressure do you actually need to put on the trigger to fire? It seems strange that so many guns go off "accidentally" when, at least the way I would imagine it, pulling the trigger would have to be a fairly deliberate move. Why have your finger on the trigger at all if you are not planning on firing? Can they go off any other way?

As a matter of curiosity, since I know basically nothing about guns (never had any need or the least bit of interest in owning one)...How much pressure do you actually need to put on the trigger to fire?

The force is measured in foot-pounds, and the amount of force necessary varies from model to model. A Glock handgun, for example, typically requires about five or six foot-pounds. A typical .380 "mousegun" might require as much as twelve or thirteen. At the other end of the scale, with a double-action revolver, if you cock the hammer first, it can be as little as around two foot-pounds (but only if you cock the hammer; if you don't, the force required is significantly higher).

Quote

It seems strange that so many guns go off "accidentally" when, at least the way I would imagine it, pulling the trigger would have to be a fairly deliberate move.

Most "accidents" aren't really accidents in the sense that you're probably thinking. In almost every such case, it's not an accident, it's someone being a smogbrain. For a gun to truly go off by accident (for example, by dropping one on the floor, or something like that) is extremely rare.

Quote

Why have your finger on the trigger at all if you are not planning on firing?

You may not know much about guns, but you have a lot of common sense. :-) "Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire" is, in fact, one of the four basic rules of gun safety.

Quote

Can they go off any other way?

Theoretically, yes, but in practice, as I said, it's very rare. It's almost always due to human error. On the few occasions when it does happen, it's usually because there's some kind of mechanical malfunction with the gun itself that prevents the usual safety devices from functioning properly.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

As a matter of curiosity, since I know basically nothing about guns (never had any need or the least bit of interest in owning one)...How much pressure do you actually need to put on the trigger to fire?

Not much, depending on the gun. 5 to 8 pounds, sometimes less. Some Dual Action guns have more, in that the trigger pull actually sets the hammer, then releases it.

Quote

It seems strange that so many guns go off "accidentally" when, at least the way I would imagine it, pulling the trigger would have to be a fairly deliberate move. <snip> Can they go off any other way?

They can go off accidentally, but it's very very unlikely. I'd bet that 99.9% of the time guns fire, somebody pulled the trigger.

Quote

Why have your finger on the trigger at all if you are not planning on firing?

[engineer] Technically, that is a measure of energy. In the english units, which suck, Pounds can be mass or force. However, in the context of foot-pounds, it is generally assumed to be force, since there is no reason for distance and mass to be together as a descriptor. distance times force is work, aka, energy. [/engineer]

Most "accidents" aren't really accidents in the sense that you're probably thinking. In almost every such case, it's not an accident, it's someone being a smogbrain. For a gun to truly go off by accident (for example, by dropping one on the floor, or something like that) is extremely rare.

They can go off accidentally, but it's very very unlikely. I'd bet that 99.9% of the time guns fire, somebody pulled the trigger.

That is what I thought. So, in your experienced opinions, would you say that in cases where a gun owner says "the gun just went off", it is most probable the gun owner is full of crap? Not that they intended to shoot anyone, but that they were doing something stupid and possibly criminally negligent at the time.

My opinion is anyone who accidentally shoots anyone, including themselves, should be a candidate to have their gun owning rights revoked on grounds they are irresponsible idiots and a threat to society.

I am surprised by the number of incidents of people cleaning loaded guns.